“Once in a while, you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.” - Grateful Dead, Scarlet Begonias

Vulnerability Requires a Will to Learn
Installment 2

Throughout history, we’ve had a lot of leaders who have shown both effective and poor leadership and who should be studied, but are not. Many people believe that past experience is not relevant to their particular situation, and they might be partially right. Technology, social norms, and new innovations do make some things in the past irrelevant. But leadership, how to lead, is not one of them. As long as humankind has been a social species, leadership has been in play. Even if the tools or norms or circumstances have changed, the requirements of leadership have not.

If Men Could Learn from History

Fear of irrelevance isn’t the only thing that gets in the way of us learning from others and history. As the writer Samuel Taylor Coleridge said, “If men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us! But passion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives us is a lantern on the stern which shines only on the waves behind us.” Let’s look at an historic example.

General George Meade assumed command of the Army of the Potomac on June 28th, 1863, just days before the epic battle of Gettysburg, the bloodiest battle of the American Civil War. His orders from the Lincoln administration were to find Robert E. Lee, who had invaded Pennsylvania with his Army of Northern Virginia, fight him, and protect Washington and Baltimore in the process.

Meade quickly learned the disposition of his 95,000-troop army, learned of Lee’s movements, and concentrated his forces in the vicinity of Gettysburg, which was also where Lee was concentrating his army with his approximately 75,000 troops. Meade himself arrived late in the night after the first day’s fighting. He immediately gathered his subordinates, solicited their advice on what they thought the army should do next, and reserved his decision until he had heard them out. The consensus was to stay and defend the ground they occupied south and east of Gettysburg, which he agreed with. He also convened his commanders again after the second day of fighting to solicit thoughts on the plan for day three, though he’d made up his mind beforehand. Still, he listened to his subordinates. His strategy on days two and three proved correct and led to a hard-fought victory over Lee.

A Decisive Defeat

Lee led differently. He had been largely successful against the Union Army of the Potomac the previous year, usually fighting outnumbered. He was more directive, especially at Gettysburg, dismissing the advice of his most trusted subordinate, Longstreet, who argued for Lee to maneuver around Meade’s army and fight on ground of Lee’s choosing rather than attacking Meade’s strong defensive position. Lee eschewed councils of war with his subordinates, relying instead on one-offs and general guidance, expecting them to work out the details. The problem was two of his three corps commanders were new to their roles and unaccustomed to his style. The result of Lee’s single-mindedness about his strategy, and notwithstanding the outstanding generalship of Meade, was that Lee suffered a decisive defeat which culminated in Pickett’s disastrous charge on the last day of fighting.

What’s remarkable about Lee’s determination to assault a prepared Union army defensive position at Gettysburg is that he himself had witnessed the disastrous consequences of an army doing so seven months before at the Battle of Fredericksburg, VA, fought December 11-15, 1862. The battle, fought between the same Union Army of the Potomac, under a different commander, and Lee’s army, included futile frontal attacks by the Union army against entrenched Confederate defenders on the heights behind the city. It is remembered as one of the most one-sided battles of the war, with Union casualties more than twice those suffered by the Confederates. A visitor to the battlefield described the battle as a “butchery” to President Lincoln.

Surely Lee learned from this and had not forgotten his success only seven months before Gettysburg. Did Fredericksburg factor into his decision-making at Gettysburg? We don’t know, since we weren’t there, and Lee did not refer to it afterward. What we do know is Lee’s army at Gettysburg suffered irreplaceable casualties as a result of his determined battle plan, and for the rest of the war it fought largely in a reactive, defensive manner. He had lost the strategic initiative.

Learning in a State of Vulnerability

Learning can be achieved only if people are willing to admit they don’t have all the answers and that others have something of value to share. Knowledge is not finite; one can never learn everything. There’s always more to know. But when pride, insecurity, and ego get in the way of seeing learning as a positive experience, forward momentum stops.

Learning from others takes place in a state of vulnerability. As mentioned previously, you face possible judgment, censure, and uncertainty. Good leaders are always learning—the ones who value and internalize the experiences of others (or themselves), and who aren’t afraid to be vulnerable. These are the types of leaders we should endeavor to emulate.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on fear and vulnerability in leadership. Please feel free to send me your thoughts here on my website or email me directly at [email protected].